As Anne Joyce, editor of the Washington quarterly Middle East Policy, has courageously written in the current issue of this journal, the war on Iraq was “planned, not to protect the American homeland from the weak Saddam Hussein, but to consolidate an American hegemony in the Middle East that will permit Israeli settlers to keep the land they are stealing from the Palestinians.”

A key question which needs to be posed more widely and intensely is in what respects (if any) a series of American wars against Israel’s enemies (let alone the perpetual “full-spectrum domination” of the entire world by the Israeli-American Empire so dear to the hearts and minds of the “neoconservative” cabal doing the thinking behind current American foreign policy) is likely (or even intended) to improve the security, prosperity or quality of life of Americans. It is a question for which honest and convincing answers are not obvious.

Those who defend the regime’s “neoconservatives” against suggestions of “dual loyalties” (a rather generous verbal formulation in the circumstances) often argue that, in fact, they make no distinction in their own minds between the United States and Israel, genuinely viewing the interests of the two countries as identical in all circumstances and honestly considering whatever is good for Israel to be good for the United States. This may well be an accurate reflection of the state of mind of many “neoconservatives” — and, indeed, for reasons of conviction or fear, of the editorial policy of most of the American media. However, many Americans, particularly those who, post-Sept. 11, do not accept “because we love freedom” as an honest and convincing answer to the question “Why do they hate us?”, do not view Master-Blaster as a single character on the world stage.

It requires great courage for anyone in the United States to question publicly this alleged identity of national interests. (The members of the US Congress who would dare to state publicly that Israeli and American interests are not always identical and that they would always put American interests ahead of Israeli interests could probably be counted on one person’s fingers.) Anyone challenging the prevailing orthodoxy in an effective manner can expect to be hit with the epithet of mass destruction “anti-Semite”, which, in America, is more intimidating than “anti-American”. This does not make challenges less essential for those who genuinely care about American national interests and world peace. Master seems to be getting so certain of his dominant position wrapped around Blaster’s head that he no longer even exercises due care in hiding himself under the helmet. Ariel Sharon has been famously quoted as telling Shimon Peres, while the latter was serving as his fig leaf foreign minister, that Israel had no reason to worry about American “pressure”, because “Israel controls the United States.” Promptly after the fall of Baghdad, an interview in the Tel Aviv daily newspaper Ma’ariv quoted Israeli Defense Minister Saul Mofaz as saying, “We have a long line of issues we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians, and it would best be done through the Americans” — who, of course, promptly did so.

Perhaps, at some point, the “liberation” of Iraq from Iraqi rule (and of Syria from Syrian rule?) will be followed by the liberation of the United States from foreign domination. In the film’s revolutionary climax, Master is knocked off Blaster’s shoulders and drowns in a vat of liquefied power, while Blaster, suddenly his own man, finds his voice and, finally, speaks for himself.

(John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)